Bad words

Alright, people. I need to ask a big, big favor of y'all. I need you to stop whatever you're doing right now, just for a minute, and I need you to close your eyes, take a deep breath in through your nose, and then exhale slowly through your mouth. Here we go. Ready? One, two three... *whew*

Feel a little better? A little calmer? Good. Me too. Now, here's the thing. I think some people around here -scratch that; a whole big boatload of people around here - have got to stop and take a breath a bit more often. We are in the process of blowing our collective gasket here, y'all, and I am really, really concerned about this situation. Let me tell you a little story, okay?

I am in South Florida, where yesterday, there was a 3-hour lockdown of every school in Broward County. At the time, all we heard was that a credible but unspecified threat of some kind had been communicated to a local radio station, and that government buildings and schools in Broward needed to be on high alert. My own child doesn't attend school in that district, but I have a niece and nephew, a godchild and many family friends who were affected by this. It was a long, tense wait while we tried to find out more information about what had happened.

Well, today, some of that information is beginning to surface. And apparently, the threat had something to do with local radio talk show host Joyce Kaufman. She is a real special lady, let me tell you. You may have already heard some of her greatest hits in the news recently, but just in case, here's a few nuggets of wonderful that Kaufman has dropped in her time:

“If you commit a crime while you’re here, we should hang you and send your body back to where you came from, and your family should pay for it.” (this was part of a screed against illegal immigrants)


"...a vast number of Florida's elementary and high-school history and geography textbooks are Islam-slanted."

“There’s no way I’m going to live in a country that’s been radically Muslim-ized … and I’m not afraid to say it."

And, of course, her most recent tirade advocated violent measures if the elections didn't go the "right" way:

“I don’t care how this gets painted by the mainstream media, I don’t care if this shows up on YouTube, because I am convinced the most important thing the Founding Fathers did to ensure me my First Amendment rights was they gave me a Second Amendment. And if ballots don’t work, bullets will.”

Unfortunately for her, this uplifting message did show up on YouTube. And on the Rachel Maddow Show, and all over the place. Interest in Kaufman's inflammatory comments skyrocketed after recently elected Congressman-to-be Allen West announced he had chosen her as his new Chief of Staff.

Within a matter of hours, infuriated people all over the state of Florida began calling and emailing local newspapers, media outlets and websites in protest. For some reason (hmmmm, now what could it be?), there were quite a few Floridians who could not believe that a man who'd been charged with representing the best interests of our state would make such an extreme person part of his inner circle.

What happened next is still a bit unclear, but it all begins to connect to the school lockdown we had in Broward yesterday. Today, reports are beginning to link the anonymous threat that caused the lockdown with Joyce Kaufman. The radio station she works for was the one that initially received the threat via email, and the email was about Kaufman. It is still unknown at this time whether the man who sent the email was supporting Kaufman or opposing her, but whatever his perspective, he had obviously been worked up into some sort of unbalanced state and decided that maybe he ought to shoot some random people somewhere in Broward.

Today, on Kaufman's radio show, she announced that she would not take the job as West's Chief of Staff. In typically understated fashion, she said she'd dropped out of the gig to protect West from any controversy she would have brought along with her:

"I will not be used in an electronic lynching by proxy.''

Yeah, forgot to mention that Allen West is an African-American, so I guess "lynching" thing was eventually gonna enter into it at some point. :/

Folks, I have lived in Florida for nearly 40 years. I have dealt with hurricanes, alligators, the Bush/Gore election debacle of 2000, and Pastor Terry Jones. I have seen drama, y'all. And I guess I ought to be used to it by now. But let me tell ya, I am more than a little demoralized by this latest political soap opera.

I campaigned here for Obama in 2008. As I did, I saw a lot of things I hadn't seen in people for a long, long time. People in my state who had felt disenfranchised and disconnected from the government for many years were suddenly active, aware and excited about the election. People who had been emotionally and spiritually exhausted by the events that transpired during George W. Bush's presidency were suddenly seeing light at the end of the tunnel. People who had been dealt major blows - losing their jobs or their businesses, losing their health insurance, losing their homes, even losing their loved ones to war - found a way to hope and to focus on the prospect of better times to come. It was an amazing thing for a jaded old broad like me to witness. The cockles of my heart are pretty resistant to being warmed too easily, but warmed they were nonetheless as I joined with these people to try and support Obama's presidential run.

Some would say (and have said) that Obama's campaign was a sham, and that all he had were words. Rhetoric gets a bad rap lately, and more often than not, that's deserved. But the greatest statesmen in American history were often great orators, and their words stirred Americans during times of war and adversity. Sometimes, when all we had were words to keep us going, we got by on them and found our way to better times. Now, I'm not saying that words are all you need to govern successfully, especially in this politically treacherous age. Once Obama got to the White House, that lesson was made painfully clear. But the words of hope and change he used in his campaign were not empty ones to many, many people I know, nor were they to me. They inspired us and got us busy trying to make this country better in some way. Unfortunately, after being elected, Obama could no longer address his words mainly to those who supported him. He had to speak to the whole nation, and he was not adequately steeled or prepared for the onslaught of other people's words trying to negate or drown out his own. Those words have been harsh, unyielding, and very effective in killing both Obama's momentum and the momentum of those who had supported him.

And now we can see the result of these escalating battles of rhetoric. Those who will use their words as calls to violence, intolerance or hate can stir passions in people just as effectively as anyone who preaches a more positive message. In fact, it's simpler to energize people with negative words, since they are so much easier for most people to agree with. Joyce Kaufman, and more importantly Allen West, our elected representative, had not been worried that the passion they created in others would work against them. But it has, and it is working against all of us when it starts posing an actual threat to the safety of the public. I will take Obama's type of rhetoric any day of the week if it gives people an urge to do something good for their country, rather than the type of fear-mongering, antagonizing rhetoric that Kaufman and West - and so many others - are relying on to politically empower themselves every single day.

So, if you are beginning to experience rhetorical overload - if you find yourself worked up after listening to a radio show or reading an article or watching the news; if you are arguing regularly with others who don't share your views; if you find yourself thinking about the things "they" are doing to piss you off in ways that make it seem like it's a matter of life and death - just stop, and take a breath. If we don't get a grip around here, this talk may well become a matter of life and death for some kid sitting in school, or a secretary working in a government building, or who knows who else. Listen to the words that move you to make things better. Filter out the ones that serve no purpose other than to anger or scare you. And then try to encourage those around you to do the same. Words changed people in this country for the better many times over the years. Words can do that for us again if enough of us say and listen to the right ones.

Bad words

Tax, lies & videotape

There is so much double-speak, exaggeration and flat-out lying going on in politics right now that it's hard to know where to begin discussing it all.

Part of the problem is that one man's truth is another man's BS. In our polarized and increasingly self-segregated society, many of us in America have started choosing what realities we wish to accept. There's one reality going on over on Fox News, for example, while another, completely different reality exists on MSNBC. The version you choose to accept as "real" will likely depend on your political party affiliation, race, socio-economic level and education, among other things.

It seems to me, however, that there could be one topic on which the right and the left should be able to find common ground: taxes. I was thinking about this after watching the Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC last night.

Part of her program was dedicated to a discussion of the Bush tax cuts. She explained why those cuts are due to expire at the end of the year (answer: that was the intention all along, since there had been no provision made to pay for them when they were signed into law and so a 10-year window was stipulated as part of the plan), and she explained how it doesn't seem likely that the GOP will have enough votes to force an extension. But the main point she made was that both the Democrats' plan and the Republicans' plan will leave most Americans' tax levels the same, or nearly the same, as they are now. The only groups that will see significant changes in their tax rates, should the Bush cuts expire, will be those making upwards of $500K per year.




The chart Maddow referenced originally appeared in the Washington Post, and is the handiwork of their economic columnist, Ezra Klein. Here's a better view of it. Go ahead - don't be afraid, give it a good look.



So, it's pretty clear that the extension of the Bush tax cuts WOULD HELP NO ONE, other than the very highest earners in America. Anyone making less than $500,000 a year should have no problem with the Obama plan, which allows the cuts to expire for the top earners but keeps the cuts in place for everyone else. And, unless you are in one of those very top income brackets, I can't understand why you'd support any politician who is still fighting for the tax cuts for the top 2% to remain in place.

As for the politicians themselves, I have no clue as to how they can go out in public and say, with a straight face, that letting these cuts expire will have a negative effect on the economy. Especially after they all ran campaigns based on fiscal responsibility, and reducing the deficit, and all that good stuff. You'd think they'd understand the simple concept that the deficit can't be reduced by allowing such huge tax breaks to continue. And yet, there was Mike Pence, a Republican congressman from Indiana, yammering away on Christiane Amanpour's show this past Sunday about how raising taxes on the rich won't really help increase government revenue, anyway. In fact, Pence upped the ante by claiming that revenues actually go down when taxes go up.

Only problem is, he's completely wrong about that. As reported by PolitiFact this week, the idea that tax increases don't correlate to increased government revenue is false. Pence, and all the other conservatives beating this particular drum, are simply not reflecting the facts accurately, and those on the right who parrot their party lines are seemingly oblivious to how far off these politicians and pundits really are.

I find it amazing - stupefying, really - that the American public as a whole isn't seeing this thing the same way. I get why politicians have to peddle this baloney, but I am finding it impossible to comprehend how all the non-millionaires that make up the bulk of the GOP's base could be so supportive of what their side is trying to pull.

As I watched Rachel Maddow's show, I realized that the folks who most needed to see it wouldn't even be watching. They'd be busy seeking out their version of reality over on Fox. But I found myself wondering if it would make any difference at all for conservative voters to see that chart, and to have a clear picture of exactly what we're talking about here when we discuss these Bush tax cuts. Would what seemed so obvious to me be as apparent to them, or would they find some basis on which to reject it? Would they have their own chart, drawn up by someone who's not part of the "lamestream media", which told the opposite story about who would benefit from the tax cuts?

It can be both maddening and wearying to contemplate these things, especially in the political environment in which we find ourselves at the moment. With a newly divided balance of power in Washington and with so little incentive for either side to give ground, with polarized voters and with an overload of dueling statistics and sources of information, how can we hope to figure anything out? It has long been said that the only two sure things in life are death and taxes, but I think we've actually found a way to narrow that list down to death alone.

Tax, lies & videotape

Cee Lo Green, "The Lady Killer"

I’ve been waiting for a good while now to download the new solo release from Cee Lo Green. At midnight, as November 8^th turned into November 9^th, I headed to Amazon and brought that sucker in. I’d heard the tracks already, for the most part, on music blogs and on Cee Lo’s website. But now that I’ve listened to it in its entirety, I have one thing to say: DAAAYUM!

Most of you, if you have been on the internet at anytime in the last couple months, have already heard the single, “Fuck You”. It’s a viral sensation that even got William Shatner to sing along (not too sure you could actually classify what the ShatMan does as “singing”, exactly, but whatever). But this tune, as good as it is, is only the tip of the iceberg. “The Lady Killer” is a great listen from top to bottom.

The whole thing hinges on Cee Lo’s unique voice. Some people like it more than others, but I friggin’ LOVE it. I could listen to this guy sing the phone book and walk away happy. He’s got a sweet soul croon, a snarling swagger, a haunted low-register rumble, and a seductive smoothness that all swirl around and vie for attention as the album progresses. His voice is more dynamic and interesting to listen to than many other performers I’ve heard on the radio lately, and it’s definitely the strongest element on this record.

The songs themselves are a mixed bag, with James Bond-ish secret agent-type flourishes, dance grooves, and lots of old-school soul/R&B. In some ways, the album feels a bit lightweight, especially when you compare them to Cee Lo’s rap work with the Goodie Mob, or his journeys into sonic and emotional weirdness as a member of Gnarls Barkley, or even the darker terrain covered in his own earlier solo work. But if you can set aside those comparisons and just listen to the album for what it is, it’s a lot of fun. You can dance to it, sing along with it, get a few laughs from it, and you can even make sweet love while it plays in the background. I reckon you can’t ask for much more from music than that.

STANDOUT TRACKS: “Fuck You” (duh!), “Old Fashioned”, “No One’s Gonna Love You”

BUY IT! At Cee Lo Green's official site At Amazon

Cee Lo Green, "The Lady Killer"

A long time ago, at a rally far, far away...

"I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler."

So read the sign that Jon Stewart brandished from his Daily Show desk, on the day he announced the Rally to Restore Sanity. It struck a real chord with moderates and liberals everywhere, because we all recognized that, as comical as it was, it truly needed to be said. Someone needed to point out that you can disagree without demonizing, and that rabid extremism on both sides had made progress nearly impossible in this country.

Flash forward about 7 weeks. I glance over the comments section of an article I'm reading online, and I see some pretty harsh stuff. "Complete dumbass"..."lying lackey"..."unparalleled douchebag"..."he should rot for this"..."Nazi stormtrooper".

The ridiculous thing is that these comments were all made by liberals, on a left-leaning blog. What could get the left to forget about the lessons of the Rally for Sanity so quickly? Well, all these insults (and many more) were directed at Phil Griffin, the president of MSNBC, because he had suspended Keith Olbermann from hosting Countdown.

The saga of Keith Olbermann has had the left in a blind panic for days. With the announcement by MSNBC that he will return to his post on Countdown tomorrow night, liberals everywhere can finally unclench their asscheeks, wipe the spittle from their faces and calm down. I have to wonder, though, why they were so bent out of shape in the first place.

As I noted in an earlier post, I get why people feel that Olbermann should have been allowed to donate to the candidates of his choice without fear of punishment. However, the fact remained that NBC News did have a policy that expressly prohibited its employees from making such donations, and Olbermann did violate that policy. The policy seems unfair, in light of the many well-documented instances of both direct and indirect support provided to Republican politicians by the Fox News crew. At this point in time, it seems sensible for NBC News to allow its anchors, whose political loyalties are already abundantly clear, to spend their private money on campaigns and candidates they support. Still, the rule was in place and Olbermann broke it, so he got what amounts to a time-out, and now he may resume normal operations. This all seemed fairly reasonable to me. Even Rachel Maddow seemed to strike this same tone when she discussed Olbermann's suspension on her own MSNBC show.

According to the vast majority of liberal America, however, the 2-night suspension of Keith Olbermann was a major injustice, and it required an immediate and deafening response on Olbermann's behalf. Twitter was ablaze following the announcement that Olbermann was suspended; most tweets decried the move and promised boycotts, petitions and continued pressure on MSNBC to "Free Keith!". Phil Griffin was called every name under the sun and instantly became the left's Public Enemy #1. And liberals started exchanging information about how to protest by canceling your cable, and which sponsors to write to, and what Griffin's email address was.

I watched all of this with a combination of bemusement and mild concern. Why, I wondered, were my fellow left-wingers so enraged? Why the Chicken Little routine? Didn't they see that this was not exactly the coming of Armageddon for our side?

I feel that Keith Olbermann, as well as all other NBC News employees, should have the freedom to contribute legally to political campaigns without it being a violation of their contract. I think it made sense for viewers and fans to express their support and to let NBC know that they wanted Olbermann back. Beyond that, I thought it was more or less obvious that neither MSNBC nor Keith Olbermann wanted the suspension to go on for too long, and that the histrionics many liberals displayed were unnecessary. I know about the tensions between Griffin and Olbermann, but I didn't really believe that Griffin would let the centerpiece show in his prime-time lineup wither and die. Still, some worried that this suspension COULD BE THE FINAL STRAW that would SEND OLBERMANN OVER THE EDGE, and then WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO COUNTDOWN, and WHAT WOULD WE ALL DO???

See, this is the sort of stuff that can make me a bit uncomfortable. I am a liberal, and have been for pretty much my entire adult life, even though "liberal" has recently become a dirty word for so many people in this country. I do not consider myself an extremist, however, and I feel this is why I was so out of step with other liberals on the whole Olbermann thing.

I never felt that it was necessary to go all torches and pitchforks on Phil Griffin. That guy is not Olbermann's staunchest supporter, not by a long shot, but he does know on which side his bread is buttered. If for no other reason than pure selfishness, the dude was not going to permanently axe Olbermann, because if he did it would be the end of MSNBC as we know it, and he didn't want that when all's said and done.

Still, people on the left had no problem whatsoever in dumping on Griffin, and going immediately into full panic mode. They started throwing out the hyperbole, the insults, and the moral indignation that, more often than not, comes from the mob on the right and not from the left. It was kinda icky.

I love Keith's show. I believe he is a vital voice for the left, and that he is one of only a handful of people on television right now who are both brave and intelligent enough to get the progressives' case out there before the American public in a clear and passionate manner.

However, I was not about to blindly freak out in his defense when he got suspended, nor did I assume that it would really change things too much if I did. I knew the punishment was going to be short-lived, a token of sorts to let the public know that even though its prime-time hosts are obviously liberals, MSNBC is still trying to maintain some official semblance of impartiality. Now that the exile has ended, I am hoping the drama has ended as well, so liberals can go back to being liberals and return to more left-wing pursuits, like being reasonable and not hurling insults at people when they disagree with them.

A long time ago, at a rally far, far away...

What's "wrong" about the left is what's right

Over the past week, I've been asking myself what it means to be a Democrat.

I'm not talking about the political aspects of being a Democrat, or the causes and beliefs of the party as a whole. For the most part, those are pretty clear. I'm wondering more about the nature of the typical Democrat. And it's MSNBC host Keith Olbermann that provoked these musings, for a couple of reasons.

First, he tweeted something last weekend, in response to Jon Stewart's choice to include clips of Olbermann alongside clips of Fox stalwarts like Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck, during a video montage shown at the Rally to Restore Sanity. Olbermann felt that it was a case of false equivalency for Stewart to have aligned him with the mouth-frothers at Fox, and after a few tweets to that effect, he ended on this note: "Whatever the losses are on Tuesday, will they be because Liberals were too LOUD or because they were too timid?"

Then, in today's news, the story broke that Keith Olbermann had contributed to the campaigns of a few Democrats in the run-up to the midterm elections. While none of his contributions were over the allowable limit and all were properly disclosed, they were in apparent violation of the code of ethics at NBC, which precludes its news employees from creating any possible "conflict of interest" by directly supporting political campaigns or organizations. Again, there were early attempts to both defend and dismiss the behavior on Twitter following the story, although they have so far been made on behalf of Olbermann by his fans and supporters and not by Olbermann himself. Tweeted responses to the story include, "It's not like Olbermann pretended to be unbiased or a news journalist", and, "You mean he's a liberal?"

Part of the reaction many will have when criticizing Olbermann will be a charge of hypocrisy. After all, it is Olbermann's show, Countdown, where several recent and ongoing stories have focused on the contributions made to the Republican Governors Association and the Chamber of Commerce by News Corp, the parent company of Fox News. Pointing out how a rival cable network has been unethical with their political contributions may now seem like the pot calling the kettle black, in the minds of some critics.

I'm sure the argument that will be put forth by Olbermann's supporters - and perhaps, ultimately, by Olbermann himself - will go something like this: A few small contributions made legally by a private citizen aren't the same as million-dollar donations made on behalf of a corporation. Olbermann wasn't using his program to raise funds or to solicit other contributions, as Fox's Sean Hannity had done for Republican gubernatorial candidate John Kasich last month. And, so what if Olbermann gave money to Democrats? At least MSNBC doesn't pretend to call itself "fair and balanced" while simultaneously feeding the right-wing's political machine, as does Fox News.

And I get all of that, just as I got why Olbermann and his fans might have been a bit riled by seeing clips from Countdown included in Jon Stewart's Rally for Sanity video montage. The cries of "false equivalency" that surfaced then may well pop up again now.

Still, I feel that the calling out of Keith Olbermann is not "false equivalency" at all. Full disclosure here: I am also a fan of Keith Olbermann. I am a regular Countdown viewer, and I enjoy and appreciate a lot of what he does on his show. Having said that, however, I think it's time to tie in the recent public nudges he's received with the results of this week's elections and the nature of Democrats as a group.

It seems to me that Democrats, on average, are a decent bunch of folks. I shouldn't generalize, of course; there are ignorant and narrow-minded Dems just as there are decent, thoughtful conservatives, and no one person is representative of either party as a whole. But I spend a lot of time with Democrats, and they do tend to have a certain way about them.

They tend to be inquisitive, and will look for information so that they may understand a question before they answer it. The knee-jerk responses are fewer and farther between among my liberal friends, because they are usually more info-based than doctrine-based. With most of them, there is acknowledgment of grey area, of doubt, on many topics they discuss, and when they have those doubts they find out more facts until they feel comfortable with their position on a subject.

They are not, generally, "me first" people. They are sympathetic to the needs of others, and are as responsive as their circumstances allow them to be. They are willing to spend time, money and effort when they can to help when help is needed. They also understand the need for communities and governments to play a role in America's well-being, and if that means we need to pay taxes in order to build roads, pay teachers' salaries or give deserving students grants for college, they're OK with that.

Nor are they "America - love it or leave it" people. They do love America, fiercely, but realize that for all its strengths, it has many weaknesses and areas that need to be improved. They point these out not to bash this country, but to try and garner support for the improvements that need to be made, so that we may be an even better nation. They realize that American exceptionalism, the buzz-phrase dear to the hearts of many on the right, is a bad idea for any nation that wants to have a strong future to look forward to, and not just the remnants of a glorious past to look back on.

Democrats are usually tolerant, and do not fear or persecute those who have a different skin color/religion/sexual orientation, etc. They can live and let live, and they can recognize the difference between behaviors that might be a problem because they actually affect others (like hate crimes against minorities or homosexuals), and behaviors that really don't matter to anyone but the person themselves (like gay marriage).

Another trait that is shared by most Democrats I know personally is the tendency to play fair. I realize that, on the bigger scale of national politics, there are definitely Democratic politicians who are crooked and corrupt too. But in my own circle of Democratic acquaintances, there is a natural inclination to abide by the rules, and to work within the system. Even when they want to change the system, they try to do it from within, not through advocating "second-amendment remedies", as suggested by Sharron Angle. Democrats don't think they are above the rules, and they are outraged when others act as if they are.

And this is where we come back to Keith Olbermann. When he was called out by Jon Stewart for the insults he used in occasional rants on Countdown, it was because Democrats know that's not the right way to carry on. False equivalency didn't apply; insults are insults, regardless of their frequency or severity compared to those thrown around by the hosts on Fox. Lowering the discussion to that level isn't productive, no matter which side does it, and Stewart was correct to make that observation. And if Olbermann's campaign contributions did, in fact, happen in violation of NBC's ethics policies, then it doesn't matter if his donations were smaller and less significant than the ones News Corp. made to the right. His actions may have been legal, and he may have had a right to make those contributions, but he did flout the rules of his workplace. Additionally, in terms of looking bad ethically, he has given some fresh ammunition to his enemies.

Finally, let's consider Olbermann's query about whether the left will suffer more by being too loud or too timid. His concern about the timidity of the left seems perfectly valid when you look at the way most left-leaning folks I know tend to act. Their inquisitiveness and open-mindedness looks like lack of conviction when compared to the black-and-white world the right occupies. Their willingness to support their community and their government can be construed as naive. Their acknowledgment of America's flaws allows some to call them self-loathing apologists. And their tolerance and sense of fair play are no match for the ruthless way that right-wing groups often exploit the rules and the fears of others in order to further grow their control and influence.

So, yes, we Democrats (and liberal Dems in particular) do have a lot of inherent characteristics that may contribute to our perceived timidity. And to people like Keith Olbermann, this is a liability that will forever hold us back when opponents threaten our political landscape, as was the case this past Tuesday. I can't help but wonder, though, if in trying to level the playing field with the right, we'd have to abandon some (or all) of the principles we currently use to govern our own behavior. And if so, would it be worth it?

The fact of the matter is, we Democrats aren't as effective politically as the GOP may be, due to our tendencies as a party in general. I mean, we've all heard it said that the meek shall inherit the earth, but I'm pretty sure that when it comes to politics, that's pretty much bullshit. President Obama displays all the tendencies I named above, and his leadership abilities have been criticized and questioned by both sides. He may be a one-term president as a result. So, is it useful to hold on to our liberal ways if it means that, in so doing, we're resigning ourselves to a government dominated by the GOP?

I can't speak for everyone who supports the Democratic party. I'd like to think that, just as in Star Wars, the powers of good can and will triumph over the dark side of the force, though we may lose a forearm and a whole pile of X-wing fighters before that happens. For myself, I don't think I'd be able to sleep knowing that our side won, but only because we were total scumbags in our pursuit of power. If there's a way to overcome right-wing scumbaggery without being actual scumbags ourselves, I'm all for it. But that's a magic formula we don't seem to have discovered just yet. Hopefully people like President Obama - yes, and Keith Olbermann too - will play a role in helping to guide us closer to that answer before the next election cycle begins.

What's "wrong" about the left is what's right

(Real) Lessons from Election 2010

I don't suppose too many of us are surprised by the results of yesterday's elections. As a Democrat, I am deflated today, but I am certainly not shocked. I'm sure the media pundits will all be feeding off the carcass of this election cycle for weeks, pretending to understand what it all means. I personally know better than to presume that I know what it means, and I will refrain from analyzing the mood of the electorate or predicting the future of the nation based on these results.

What I do know is what went wrong in terms of the election process as a whole. It seems we've outgrown the "business as usual" template for political campaigning and reporting. I really do think the way we've gone about things is old, tired and in sore need of some serious upgrading. In the spirit of bi-partisanship, let me offer some ideas with which both the left and the right may agree.

The reality of the situation is this: even with all the available coverage of political candidates and campaigns, voters still manage to remain unaware and uninformed in so many ways. In fact, it could be argued that this lack of awareness is a direct result of the overwhelming amount of available information out there today. If you're someone who leans right, there are cable channels, newspapers and websites which will present "news" from your perspective, and nothing but. The same holds true for those who lean left. It's pretty clear that most voters tend to seek out their own particular safe havens, and dwell there without venturing beyond them. This severely limits the information and viewpoints that they are exposed to, and at the end of the day, no matter how much time people spend reading and viewing, nobody learns anything.

There's also the (very large) segment of the population who has simply switched off altogether. They are sick of the hype and disgusted by the system, and have decided that they'd rather not participate in the process at all. They have no respect for any politician or party, and no motivation to become involved.

For both the ideologically rigid and the politically apathetic, there are certain truths that apply. I think the media, both parties and all politicians need to accept these truths now, and learn a lesson or two about how to better handle the campaign and election process next time around. In that spirit, here are the real lessons of Election 2010:

NO MORE DEBATES. The debates I watched over the past several weeks were complete wastes of time. On the local and state levels, I saw nothing that even approached a healthy exchange of ideas and opinions. Candidates no longer answer the question, regardless of what question is being asked. The debate process has degenerated into a platform for extended political ads, in which talking points are endlessly regurgitated and digs at the opposing candidate(s) are volleyed at regular intervals. If these political wanna-bes can't even handle giving a straight answer in a debate, we cannot hope to get straight answers from them once they are elected.

NO MORE POLITICAL ADS. When an ad comes on the television, who is actually paying attention? When a flyer appears in the mailbox, who is actually reading it? Even if some people do see them, how many change their minds or find new points of view to consider as a result? I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of political advertising, both broadcast and print, is completely ineffective at this point in time. There are some ads which have attracted attention for their sheer nuttiness/entertainment value (demon sheep? "I am not a witch"?), but I would bet my house on the fact that no one who cares enough to vote is using the ads as a source of information on which to base their decisions. The amount of money spent on advertising is insane, and a waste of epic proportions.

NO MORE ROBOCALLS. One of the worst ideas ever in the history of politics. I cannot, for the life of me, imagine that anyone does anything other than screen their calls or hang up once the robocalls start coming in. Again, a waste of time and money.

NO MORE POLLS IN THE NEWS. If politicians want to do internal polling to let them know what campaign strategies are working and which are not, that's fine. But when the polls are the focus of every news report for months, it hinders the democratic process. I can tell you that, here in my home state of Florida, there were so many people who "knew", months ago, that the Democratic candidate for Senate, Kendrick Meek, had no chance to win and should just drop out, because the polls told them so. Similarly, when I did some "Get Out The Vote" work for the Dems, I saw incredible numbers of people who felt there was no point voting for the incumbent Congressman from my district, Democrat Ron Klein, because the polls showed his GOP opponent to be leading by a sizable margin. These polls depress voter enthusiasm and turnout by convincing people that the results are already a forgone conclusion, long before the election even takes place. Additionally, they are notoriously flawed and can be affected by many different factors. To feature them as gospel on so many news networks and websites is irresponsible journalism. News outlets may as well use a Magic 8 Ball or an Ouija board as a source.

NO MORE MEDIA COVERAGE OF INSIGNIFICANT CANDIDATES. There was a ludicrous amount of press on Delaware's Christine O'Donnell during this election cycle. This, despite the fact that she was never seriously expected to win, no matter whose side you were on. She, and other kooky, long-shot candidates, ate up a ton of media time, distracted a huge chunk of the voting public from more important topics, and further solidified the idea that our government is a circus rather than a functioning body of public servants.

With such over-saturation of the political landscape, is it any wonder that American voters are either completely polarized or completely indifferent? The current means of campaigning and of covering elections has jumped the shark. Unless things change, I know that, by the time this nation is asked to vote again, it will have been beaten senseless by the mind-numbing barrage of ads and media coverage that it has had to endure, just as it was this time. And most of those who have endured it will either remain unswayed by the hue and cry, voting the party line blindly, or will ignore it all and choose not to choose. That is certainly not the best way to elect our leaders. The system needs to be radically revamped, and soon, so that we may find a way back to meaningful debate, dialogue and democracy before we are asked to head to the polls again.

(Real) Lessons from Election 2010

Game Over

I felt like posting something about this week in politics, since it has been an extraordinary week. Particularly, the State of the Union address and the "question time" session between President Obama and the GOP have had me thinking about the situation in Washington and what needs to happen next.

President Obama pretty much hit the bullseye by having that public dialogue with the opposition party, and by suggesting that there should be more of these meetings in the future. What a relief it is to have an opportunity to see our elected officials actually discussing something substantive, and bringing some meat to the conversation, instead of rerunning the same old, worn out and meaningless talking points they trot out on the talk shows. That's not to say that there was no rhetoric during the Q&A session, but there was definitely a higher level of effort made on both sides to act like grownups and at least try to get somewhere.

Yet, it apparently wasn't enough to make a lasting change in the way things work in D.C. On Meet the Press this morning, there was John Boehner, as unnaturally orange of face as ever, holding firm on the party line and insisting that the GOP have "an obligation to stand on principle". He explained that the American people expect their representatives to do this, and that this is their primary job on Capitol Hill.

That's when I started to yell at my TV. How wrong-headed can a guy be, especially after some really clear and obvious signs from the public that we expect our government to step up their game? Part of the problem, it occurs to me, is that the GOP have gotten confused about exactly which game it is that they are playing.

They seem to think that politics is just a big football game. Maybe it's because of the Super Bowl or something. But they act as if the idea is to have two opposing teams, one playing offense and the other playing defense, with the only objective being to score points for your own team and prevent the other team from scoring.

Which begs the question that, to me, seems pretty obvious: how does that make things happen that need to happen in this country? How does it assist job creation, health care reform, national security, long-term fiscal stability, or anything else? If either party decides to just hold the line and block the other guys for 4 years, waiting until it's their turn to get the ball back and run the kind of plays they want to run, we get nowhere and nothing gets better. You can't just say that you are content to bide time until the other team runs out of downs. That's NOT the job that Boehner and the other D.C. dipsticks were elected to do. They were elected to work out how to fix the problems and meet the challenges that face our nation.

Unfortunately, the GOP feels that protecting their particular ideology is all that matters, and that if the nation as a whole has to suffer a while longer while they protect it, then that's just how it has to be. Now, I'm not here to say that either side needs to just roll over, abandon their beliefs and make nice for the sake of it. But what I truly believe, especially after watching the Q&A session this week, is that there are probably many more areas of common ground between the left and the right than they care to acknowledge, and that many ideas that might actually work are being shunned by Republicans not because the ideas are bad, but because they are being proposed by the Obama administration or the Democrats.

I guess, according to what Boehner says, the Republicans will look back on the Obama presidency as nothing more than an inconvenient speed bump on the road to their next period as the majority party. It will not be a time during which any progress is made, nor will it be a time where the GOP will assume responsibility for any work that needs to be done. All they're there for, from what they're saying, is to stave off as many Democratic efforts as possible and preserve their ideology so it's ready to go when the next Republican Congress and President show up. If this is their definition of leadership, no wonder this country's going down the shitter so quickly.

True leadership is about intelligence, open-mindedness and flexibility. Without those qualities, you can't properly assess a situation, or figure out the best way to deal with it. You have to be able to acknowledge that circumstances are never constant - that there is always some new variable, some unexpected factor, that gets thrown into the mix. An unwavering ideology is never going to be able to provide solutions for all the problems we face. There must be creative thought, there must be cooperation, and there must be mutual effort. Most importantly, that effort must be made on behalf of the nation and not merely to serve a particular party. Otherwise, who benefits? We regular folks just continue to suffer for 4 years while they screw around, and the mess that the next guy (be he a Republican or Democrat) must clean up just gets bigger and bigger. How is this a good result for anyone?

We need to let the GOP know that the football game has to end. We need to change the rules of play entirely to ensure that the interests of the people are what matters, and not the partisan point-scoring. If Boehner and the Republicans continue to defend and excuse their obstructionism by saying it's what they were elected to do, they will fail to truly serve the people who elected them. And as we are seeing at ballot boxes around the nation, voters are quick to discard the people who fail to serve their interests well, regardless of their party affiliation. No one is safe, and no ideology is sacred. People can't feed their families or pay their bills with ideologies. The GOP will need to come up with a better game plan than merely being defenders of the faith, because the nation's faith in politicians who do nothing has finally run dry.

Game Over